Humanities and Social Sciences

Wiadomości Numizmatyczne

Content

Wiadomości Numizmatyczne | 2009 | Rok LIII | Zeszyt 1 (187) |

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

W 2008 r. w miejscowości Kvie na Gotlandii odkryto dalszych 20 monet ze skarbu ujawnionego już w 1929 roku (tpq 1027). Wśród nowych okazów rozpoznano denar Bolesława Chrobrego (992–1025) (Ryc. 1). Awers został wybity już znanym stemplem awersu typu Dux inclitus, rewers natomiast nowym stemplem naśladującym rewers pensa Etelreda II (978–1016) typu Crux (991–997). Monetę służącą wzorem wybił w Yorku mincerz o imieniu Thurstan (Ryc. 3). Dwie dalsze monety Bolesława Chrobrego wybite tym samym stemplem rewersu udało się odszukać przy pomocy Williama Leana w zbiorach brytyjskich: w British Museum (kolekcja Elmore Jonesa; ryc. 5) i w Merseyside County Museums w Liverpool (ryc. 4). Awersy tych monet, również identyczne, noszą znane już naśladownictwo stempla Etelreda II typu Last Small Cross (1009–1017). Odkrycia te wzbogacają uzupełniany już blisko od stulecia (E. Majkowski, Z. Zakrzewski, S. Suchodolski; ryc. 6) łańcuch połączeń stempli monet Chrobrego trzech typów: I polskiego z napisem BOLIZAS DVX — INCLITVS (ryc. 7), II anglosaskiego z imieniem króla Etelreda (ryc. 4 i 5) i III bawarskiego ze zniekształconym imieniem króla Henryka II (1002–1014) (ryc. 10). Typ anglosaski dotychczas był znany tylko z awersu, obecnie poznaliśmy również stronę odwrotną. Interesujące jest jednak, że wzorce tych stempli mają różną chronologię. Awers naśladuje monetę z Lincoln z lat ok. 1013–1017 (ryc. 2), rewers natomiast monetę z Yorku około 20 lat starszą (ryc. 3). Wykonawcą stempli był człowiek o dużych umiejętnościach, który nie został jednak wykorzystany do dalszej produkcji menniczej w Polsce. W obrębie wspomnianej grupy stemple wielokrotnie łączą się ze sobą (Ryc. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11). Świadczy to o tym, że były używane w tym samym miejscu, w zbliżonym czasie i zapewne też w zbliżonym czasie zostały wytworzone (ok. 1015–1020). Na początku tego okresu — lub może nawet parę lat wcześniej — powstał typ bawarski. Przyczyny połączeń były różnorodne: zarówno techniczne (chęć maksymalnego wykorzystania stempli), jak też ekonomiczne (chęć zarekomendowania własnych monet), a pewną rolę mógł odegrać również przypadek. Wagi monet tej grupy są mocno zróżnicowane (1,05–1,97 g), a ich wagi średnie stosunkowo wysokie (1,485, 1,64, 1,36 g) i zbliżają się do wagi innych monet Bolesława Chrobrego z drugiej połowy panowania. Znaleziska zawierające te monety mają stosunkowo duży rozrzut (Wielkopolska, Mazowsze, Małopolska, Pomorze, Gotlandia, Norwegia, Rosja). Bite były zapewne, tak jak i inne monety Bolesława Chrobrego, w Wielkopolsce lub na północnym Mazowszu, w jednym z głównych centrów jego państwa.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Kenneth Jonsson
Stanisław Suchodolski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Na niemieckim rynku antykwarycznym oraz na różnych aukcjach numizmatycznych w 1997 r. pojawiło się 118 monet wczesnośredniowiecznych zestawionych w pracy. Stanisław Suchodolski stwierdził, że mogą to być kolejne monety z rozproszonego wczesnośredniowiecznego skarbu, odkrywanego w latach 1982–1993 na polu ornym we wsi Lasowice, pow. Nysa, i opublikowanego w WN w 1997 r. Zestawienie zawiera 92 denary bawarskie i szwabskie z X w., 18 denarów czeskich Bolesława II oraz ich naśladownictwa, trzy monety z mennicy w Kolonii (Otto I/II), dwie z Moguncji (Otto I/II), jedną z Zurychu i jedną z Italii , wybitą w mennicy w Pawii. Dla poszczególnych egzemplarzy bawarskich i części czeskich podano typy według klasyfikacji W. Hahna, dla pozostałych monet czeskich typy według klasyfikacji F. Cacha, a dla niemieckich według H . Dannenberga. Spis ten uzupełnia korekta typów monet bawarskich opublikowanych w 1997 r. Statystycznie ujmując, dodatkowe monety przedstawiają zestaw zupełnie podobny do poprzednio zarejestrowanego. Monety bawarskie, które liczbowo tworzą ok. ¾ skarbu, kończą się w połowie lat osiemdziesiątych X w. i dają ważny chronologiczny punkt zaczepienia dla wczesnych monet czeskich. Te zaś — co typowe dla śląskich skarbów tego czasu — mają tu stosunkowo mocną reprezentację blisko 1/8. Łącznie ze skarbu znamy obecnie 298 egzemplarzy, a podsumowanie ich wagi daje ok. 346 g.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Wolfgang Hahn
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

During archaeological research in Łosień (c 32 km NE of Katowice), an early medieval smelting centre from the eleventh and twelfth centuries was revealed where lead and silver were smelted. Besides production equipment devices, seven iron, bronze-plated weights (weighing: 40 g, 39.7 g, 40 g, 40 g, 24.4 g, 17.19 g, 10.59 g) and elements of beam scales were discovered here. Nearby, a settlement was revealed. The whole complex was destroyed as a result of an armed attack. A hoard containing 1106 coins and 179 fragments of amorphous silver was discovered in the settlement (it is not clear whether it was located inside a building). All the coins were Polish: a younger variant of a cross-penny (1), and pennies of Boleslas III (1), Ladislas II (189) and Boleslas IV (949). These were almost exclusively coins minted around the middle of the twelfth century. The structure of the hoard does not reflect the structure of money circulating on the market. At that time, periodical exchange of issues was conducted every few years and use of only the coins of the newest type — at least in relations with the state — was obligatory. So the hoard was purposefully set aside as a treasure. It contains mostly better coins, minted according to the standard of 360 pennies to the mark (type 4 of Ladislas II and types 1 and 2a of Boleslas IV). A few slightly worse coins were collected, issued according to the standard of 480 pennies to the mark (types 2b and 3 of Boleslaus IV). However at the time of the deposit such standards were already a thing of the past: the standard of at least 540 pieces to the mark was already binding then. Only four specimens of such poor coins (type 4 of Boleslaus IV) were added to the hoard. It is probable that another money devaluation was related to the concealment of hoard. The presence of non-monetary silver in the hoard also proves it to have been intended as an accumulation of value in itself, consistent with the non-circulating character of the deposit. In Łosień, coins of these types have been found in a large hoard near Kraków for the first time. Previously known deposits occurring in central Poland, Great Poland, the Lublin region, and even in Silesia, made it possible to conjecture the existence of one more workshop operating in Great Poland, e.g. in Gniezno, where some types of Boleslaus IV’s coins might have been minted. Now these speculations have lost their raison d’etre. The analyses of the metal composition indicate the similarity of silver in coins and silver lumps, but the latter lack a deliberate admixture of copper. A single bracteate of Lower Silesia from the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth century, with bull’s head, was also found in the remains of a richly equipped dwelling house. There is no strict analogy with the bracteates in the literature.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Leszek Krudysz
Dariusz Rozmus
Stanisław Suchodolski
Bartłomiej Sz. Szmoniewski
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Artykuł oparty jest na dokumentach przechowywanych w Archiwum Narodowym w Pradze, zespół „Ministerstvo financí”, a także w archiwach Czeskiego Banku Narodowego w Pradze i Państwowej Drukarni Papierów Wartościowych w Pradze. Uzupełnia informacje zawarte w katalogu polskich pieniędzy papierowych Czesława Miłczaka z 2005 roku. Porównanie sytuacji walutowej w Czechosłowacji i w Polsce po 1945 r. wykazuje wyraźne cechy wspólne. Okupacja niemiecka zdewastowała systemy pieniężne obu państw i nowe władze musiały stopniowo usuwać z obiegu pieniądz okupacyjny. Do obiegu wypuszczono najpierw bony tzw. serii 1944, wydrukowane w Moskwie. Gdy w Czechosłowacji podczas reformy monetarnej z 1 listopada 1945 roku wydano do obiegu znaki pieniężne, wydrukowane przez rząd emigracyjny w Wielkiej Brytanii, w Polsce banknoty wydrukowane podczas wojny w Stanach Zjednoczonych i Wielkiej Brytanii nie zostały emitowane. Rząd warszawski poszedł drogą tworzenia i emisji własnych banknotów, wydrukowanych w kraju (poza jednym nominałem, wydrukowanym w Czechosłowacji). W 1950 roku rząd w Warszawie postanowił przeprowadzić radykalną reformę pieniężną. Monety wykonano w Republice Czechosłowackiej (mennica Kremnica) i na Węgrzech (mennica Budapeszt). Banknoty wydrukowany w Polsce (2 zł, 5 zł), na Wegrzech (10 zł, 20 zł), a najwyższe i najbardziej skomplikowane nominały Czechosłowacji (50 zł, 100 zł a 500 zł) na papierze banknotowym dostarczonym przez polski rząd. Odmiennie niż w Czechosłowacji, nie wprowadzono w Polsce nominałów opartych na trzykrotności jednostki. Dostawy monet i banknotów z Węgier realizowano transportem kolejowym przez czechosłowackie terytorium, pod eskortą pracowników Państwowego Banku Czechoslowackiego i ochrona policyjną. Banknoty drukowane w Pradze przewożono również w konwojach kolejowych eskortowanych także przez przedstawicieli polskiej strony, którzy w Boguminie przejmowali odpowiedzialność za transport. Autorzy śledzą trasy i terminy poszczególnych transportów (przywóz papieru do Pragi, wywóz banknotów z Pragi, transporty do i z Budapesztu). Podczas realizacji reformy walutowej z 1 czerwca 1953 r. w Czechosłowacji wszelkie nowe znaki pieniężne przywieziono ze Związku Sowieckiego. Artykuł dopełnia dane o jednym z etapów rozwoju polskiej waluty i dostarcza materiału porównawczego dla badań powojennych przemian monetarnych w Europie Środkowej.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Jiří Šouša
Jaroslav Šůla

Instructions for authors

Submission guidelines for authors

We ask all authors to adhere to the following guidelines in preparing articles for publication:

We accept submissions in electronic form (electronic delivery or CDs) in a commonly used word processor format (such as MS Word or AbiWord).
If any characters outside the standard set of typefaces (Arial, Calibri, Courier, Times New Roman, Symbol, and Wingdings) are used, a PDF filemust additionally be supplied.

● Together with your article, supply a separate text file containing the following metadata:

- Title,
- Author(s),
- ORCID number (with the link),
- Affiliation,
- Abstract,
- Keywords,
- Bibliography.

● Submissions (except those intended for the sections “Finds,” “Reviews,” or “Chronicles”) should include an abstract (describing the content of the article in no more than 1,000 characters) and a summary (approximately 10% of the volume of the article). Both texts should be in English or prepared for translation into English. At the end of your article, include the author’s affiliation and e-mail address for publication.

● Do not use all-caps (except in quotes from inscriptions), automatically formatted numbered or bulleted lists, hyperlinks, underlining or color highlighting, or manual hyphenation. Do not use spaces to align or adjust the text. To create tables, use a table editor (not tabs or spaces).

● Citations are to be placed in footnotes at the bottom of the page (not within the text – this does not apply to catalogue references in coin descriptions). Whenever possible, footnotes should be used for bibliographic purposes; avoid using them for commentaries.

● Use the Oxford style of referencing for footnotes (the author’s name, year). If possible, use the same format for catalog citations in coin descriptions. The article should include a list of references at the end with bibliographic entries consistent with the format adopted in Wiadomości Numizmatyczne (examples can be found at https://journals.pan.pl/wn).

● For articles intended for publication in Polish, foreign alphabets should be transliterated in bibliographic entries in accordance with the Polish Standard (e.g. PN-ISO 9-2000 for Slavic alphabets; see https://centrum.nukat.edu.pl/pl/warsztat/transliteracja). For articles intended for publication in languages other than Polish, use the transliteration standards accepted in those languages – for English, this is the Library of Congress system, used depending on the options offered by the word processing software ( https://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html)

● For present-day facts, use current geographical names (as opposed to, for example, Russian names in post-Soviet countries outside Russia; this also applies to abstracts in foreign languages). However, for articles intended for publication in Polish, it is recommended to use accepted Polish transliteration and traditional transcription rules, but only in the main text (not in bibliographic entries). Also, remember that any lesser-known name should be explained once in transliterated form together with an indication of the administrative unit to which it belongs. In the description of historical facts, use historical names then in use (such as Królewiec and Rychbach, not Kaliningrad and Dzierżoniów).

● Illustrations should be supplied in separate files (as opposed to being embedded in the text):

- Photographs should be supplied as TIFF or JPG files at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi (preferably 600). Photographs of coins should be cut out from the background and properly scaled.
- Drawings (site plans, maps) should not be larger than the size of one printed page (12.5×19 cm).
- Illustrations should be captioned and described in the text as “Fig.”

Authors of articles in the “Finds” section are asked to tailor reports of coin finds to the following system whenever possible:

1. city/town/village, municipality, and county (within current administrative division!);
2. place found;
3. date found;
4. discovery circumstances and finder;
5. the archaeological context (including position within a grave);
6. the number of coins found, collectively or individually;
7. the method of preservation;
8. terminus post quem of the find;
9. the current location where the coins are held;
10. the list of the coins discovered and possible accompanying objects (remember to include metrological data, especially for ancient and medieval coins, identify the mint – if it may be different – and provide a catalogue references);
11. a brief commentary, if any.

Brevity is appreciated, and illustrations of coins and site plans are always welcome.
Compliance with the above rules will speed up the publication of the article in a form that is clear and satisfactory to authors.

Publication Ethics Policy

Principles of publication ethics

The editorial board of Wiadomości Numizmatyczne follows the principles of accountability and ethics recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for all those involved in the publication process and makes every possible effort to prevent any misconduct.


EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Fairness and impartiality: Submissions are evaluated on the merits of their content alone, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political ideology.

Publication decisions: The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should or should not be published. Decisions on the acceptance of an article for publication or its rejection are made by the editor-in-chief based on reviews that evaluate the article’s content, originality, clarity, and relevance to the scope of the journal. In making decisions, the editor-in-chief consults subject editors. The editor-in-chief is required to observe applicable provisions on defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism, and to take full responsibility for decisions on the publication of articles.

Confidentiality: Editors and members of the Scientific Board must ensure that all materials submitted for publication remain confidential while under review. They may not disclose any information about the submitted manuscripts to anyone except the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers (e.g. translators), and the publisher.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished articles, article excerpts, or materials contained therein may not be used by the editorial board or the editors for the purpose of their own research without the written consent of the authors.

Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record: Editors will safeguard the integrity of the published record, and publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions when needed. At the same time, the editorial board will make every effort to identify any research misconduct or publication misconduct. Plagiarism and articles based on falsified data are unacceptable. When ethical concerns arise about a submitted or published article, editors should take appropriate steps in response. The editors of the journal are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

Retractions of published articles:
The journal’s editors will consider retracting a published article if:
- we have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, as a result of either misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental errors);
- the results were previously published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (cases of redundant publication);
- the article constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research.
Notices of retraction should be linked to the retracted article (by including the title and authors in the retraction heading), clearly identify the retracted article, and state who is retracting the article. Notices of retraction should always include the reason(s) for the retraction, so as to distinguish honest error from misconduct. Retracted articles will be retained in the journal’s print copies and electronic archives, but their retracted status will be marked as prominently as possible.


DUTIES OF AUTHORS:

Reporting standards: Authors of articles presenting the results of original research should provide an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the article. An article should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to verify the hypotheses contained therein. Fabrication and the presentation of false or inaccurate research results constitutes unethical behavior and will result in the rejection of a manuscript or the retraction of a published article.

Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have made use of the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism is unacceptable.

Data access: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data for editorial review, and they should be prepared to provide public access to such data and to retain such data for a specified period after the publication of their article.

Multiple or concurrent publications: Authors should in general not publish a manuscript describing the same research in more than one journal. However, in exceptional and justified cases, the editorial board of Wiadomości Numizmatyczne will consider publishing a text published in another journal, provided that it was addressed to a different audience and in a different language.

Authorship: Articles in Wiadomości Numizmatyczne may be published only under the names of individuals who have made a significant contribution as authors and are responsible for the content of such articles. All persons whose contributions to the creation of the submitted article are negligible (for example, limited to providing research materials) may be mentioned in the acknowledgments, but they must not be listed as authors. In the case of doubts, the editorial board will asks for a description of the contribution of each person listed as an author. Authors should also disclose, in a footnote or in the acknowledgments, information about individuals and institutions that contributed to the creation of the article by making content-related, material, or financial contributions. The corresponding author should ensure that only appropriate individuals are listed as co-authors of the article and that such co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to its submission for publication. Cases of scientific misconduct will be documented and disclosed.

Acknowledgement of sources: Authors should ensure the proper acknowledgement of the results of the work of other researchers. For this reason, they should cite publications they have used as sources of information and hypotheses when writing their articles.

Fundamental errors in published papers: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article.


DUTIES OF REVIEWERS:

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer reviews assist editors in making editorial decisions and may assist authors in improving their articles.

Promptness: Any reviewer who does not feel competent to review a submitted article or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality: The whole of a manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with anyone except the persons authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly, using appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources: Any substantial similarity or overlap between the article under review and any other published article should be reported to the editor. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. Reviewers should not agree to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in writing the article. Authors have the right to respond to the critical remarks of reviewers.

Peer-review Procedure

Review procedure

- All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of Wiadomości Numizmatyczne are subject to a double-blind review.

- Every scientific article is peer-reviewed by independent experts in the relevant specialization.

- The editorial board will make every effort to select reviewers with no professional or private relationship with the author of the text being reviewed.

- Reviewers are required to provide an objective review of the submitted article.

- Reviewers are required to disclose any irregularities that they discover, in particular any forms of plagiarism.

- Reviews must be made in writing and must include a clear evaluation of the submitted article.

- Reviewers evaluate whether or not the article is eligible for publication. The evaluation is based on the following criteria: whether the topic is approached in an innovative manner, whether the article takes into account the most recent subject literature, whether appropriate methodology has been used, and what impact the article will have on the current state of research in the field.

- The articles under review are treated as confidential.

- The reviewers remain anonymous.

- Authors are required to participate in the review process, in particular to incorporate or respond to suggested corrections and to remove identified errors.

- Once a year, the editorial board of Wiadomości Numizmatyczne publishes a list of reviewers collaborating with the journal on a specific issue. The list is published in the journal’s print issue and on the journal’s website.

Plagiarism Policy


The journal observes the principles of scientific transparency and integrity.
We therefore accept no forms of plagiarism, ghostwriting, or honorary authorship. In order to prevent these, relevant provisions have been included into the agreements signed with authors.
All the articles intended for publication in the journal are screened for plagiarism using the iThenticate software.

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more